Is it moral to genetically engineer our children?
For example if we could genetically engineer our children before they are born so they will be immune or resistant to certain diseases.
Yes
Side Score: 23
|
 |
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
10
points
But are you? I would normally have no problem with curing diseases, but genetic engineering, especially the type mentioned here (germ line cell therapy) can have severe consequences for future generations if it is messed up. Often mistakes can not show up for several generations meaning that countless people could be affected by some horrible unforeseen genetic disease. Side: No
could you be less off topic! but i wish i was genetically engineered because i have allerges really bad in the spring and even walking out side my eyeballs swell up and im blind for the rest of the day. plus i am like ashy like sand ashy it's because of my exema and that runs in my family Side: yes
1
point
1
point
yes if it is to help our children, however, i believe it is not moral for much more than that, i do like the furthering in science, i find that by the time the technology is readily available morals usually have shifted. for ex, cell phones, if someone had told someone years ago, im going to give u a cell phone, and track every movement u make, people would FLIP yet, when its found out apple has been doing just that, no one cares now adays Side: yes
1
point
We could potentially elimintate congenital diseases, and make people healthier. We could also make people smarter. There are lots of good reasons, only a few bad ones, and the bad seems to be only a matter of potential problems (and most of these seem like they are less bad than the benefits are good) Side: Yes
1
point
|
It makes logical sense to choose certain genes to go into our children to make them immune to certain defects. That part is moral, yes. But I'm guessing that this would be fairly pricey, limiting such services to certain classes of people, which means that there would eventually be two types of humans--enineered, and natural. What is to stop the 'superior' engineered people from lookind down and/or discriminating against the 'inferior' grab-bag-type people? Or the other way. Thus, no. Unless you can find a way to make sure there is no discrimination, it's probably not a good idea. Side: No
I see where you're coming from, but just because a benefit can't be enjoyed by everyone doesn't mean the benefit should not be provided. e.g. Not everyone can afford ongoing treatment for a serious illness, and the government may not be able to freely provide such treatment to everyone who can't pay for it themselves. But it's still better to allow some people (the richer ones) to get treatment than to disallow everyone from getting it just because some people can't afford it. The upper classes are the first to reap the benefits of a new technology; this isn't really something we can change. But these benefits do slowly trickle down to the masses, as history demonstrates. Genetic engineering will surely be a very exclusive service when it is first offered, but if it proves useful and popular, the technology will be improved and/or funding will be made available, and eventually it will become affordable and common, and hence nothing to discriminate about. Side: yes
But when the rich get healed from serious diseases, there's really no inherent superiority in it. They still suffer from the same sicknesses that poor people do; the rich can only cure them. But when you have an entire class of people genetically immune to those diseases, you do have inherent superiority. And nothing can stop them from lording over the little people. Side: No
I recently did a paper on this for school so I may be able to share some info. First off, there are three types of genetic engineering. Somatic cell therapy, germ line cell therapy and cloning. I assume that cloning does not apply to this debate. Somatic cells are diploid(2 chromosome) standard non-reproductive cells. Germ line cells are haploid(1 chromosome) reproductive cells, specifically sperm and egg. This is the one you mention. The problem with genetic engineering is that the science isn't perfect. Often when a gene is altered it affects many traits. So while altering a gene may get rid of a disease it could have much worse consequences, even later in a person's life. Somatic engineering is morally permissible in my opinion because it can only affect the person who it is administered to. In other words it will not affect their offspring. Germ line therapy, however, could have very severe consequences due to the fact that it can be passed down to the recipient's offspring and all of their offspring and so on. So if the scientist messes up and creates a problem that doesn't show up for several generations, that problem could affect countless people. In my opinion germ line therapy, the type you mentioned, is not morally permissible because of this. The science still has much room for improvement so until it's perfected I would advise caution for all types of genetic engineering, especially types that could affect future generations. Side: No
|
